Linear changer questions

[Les Ford]

From what I can see, the linear changers in Excels, Sierra's etc. work by essentially changing the length of the string, at least on the lowering finger. How does this not change the relative intonation with the other strings? Or am I making up an issue where none exists?

The string has a broader area of contact with the string at the top of the finger. Does this cause any problems and if so is it helpful to machine a steeper falloff on the fingerboard side of the centre of the finger where it contacts the string?

I have only ever seen one picture of an Excel finger and have never seen one in the flesh. I am not absolutely sure if there is a sharper rolloff on the fretboard side to deal with an issue or if it just that the other side is flatter to incorporate the string channel that holds the ball end.

These changers have a lower break angle across the bridge. Does this have an effect sound wise or otherwise?

It looks to me like the raise finger must float above and below the axle shaft and the string vibration must be transferred through the bottom pivot into the lowering finger and then up into the axle and so on. Does this limit the choice of material for this pivot to something that can effectively carry vibration as opposed to something that might reduce rattles in the assembly?

[Ross Shafer]

Your question regarding intonation is valid....although yes, it is a problem that does not exist. This is a fretless instrument with no finite fretting point like other fretted and fretless stringed instruments. Intonation adjustments are intended to correct the intonation of strings caused by the deflection/bend created by pushing the string to a fret board....while different along the neck's length, still a finite amount of deflection at any given point along the neck.

Slide instruments do not have this finite point and are therefore subject to ever changing bar pressure/string deflection which makes
necessary to adjust intonation by ear.

FYI...while these are commonly referred to as "linear" changers...they aren't. They do significantly reduce the bending of a string, but the string contact point does not move in a straight line as "linear" might indicate. The only full mechanical linear changer I've actually ever seen was Lamar Colvin's brilliant design that used a basic all pull mech to move sleds in a linear track, netting an absolute straight string pull.

[Les Ford]

Thanks Ross, I assumed that the intonation thing might not be an issue because guys like you have been making and using these things but there is something that freaks me out about having some strings shorter or longer than the rest.

I think that I'll try to make a few and see what I can learn.

[J D Sauser]

The linear changer (mostly only linear LOWER) made a resurgence in the 90's with the appearance of Anapeg guitars, mostly because Tom Brumley appeared with one.
Actually, the concept is a "verticalisation" of the first known commercialized PSG concepts seen on the Harlin Bros. and Gibson Electraharp PSGs of the 1940's, wich were arrange in a horizontal layout and on the left.
Some Rickenbacker (formerly Rickenbacher) PSGs may have been the first vertical adaptations and then the Gene Fields (known for GFI PSGs now) designed revolutionary Fender PS210 used a further evolution of that design in the 1960's. Sadly the guitar did not meet the sales criteria of FENDER and only just over a dozen where built, so many steel builder did not take notice of that design and it only got re-discovered when Anapeg made quite a splash. And around that time, a Florida based company which name escapes me right now did a similar adaptation. I wouldn't want to wager who was first there, but they were Continents apart, so I doubt that there was some "picking".
Today, it's the core design of Excel's Superb model and the Ross Sierra. The Sierra model has but TWO parts... and functions exceptionally.
I hope that upon closure Sierra makes the design public domain. It could help blow some new air under the wings of steel guitar development.

YES, the first suspicion is scale-length (intonation) issues. MAYBE John Hughey would have encountered some of that space-walking "out there" beyond the 18th fret... but I can't find that I does on all my guitars (Excel & Sierra) which would outweigh the issues found up there anyhow. And we're no John Hugheys so... get my drift?

They are great changer and very adaptable to the knife-edge support (vs. sitting on a round shaft... since that's a floating subject on the this end of the forum). The Fender PS210 was using the knife-edge support of the changer and that mechanical approach to most of the undercarriage re-direction applications.

... J-D.

[Jerry Overstreet]

Lamar Colvin built some guitars with this linear pulling system to which Ross refers above. Might pick his brain or check out some of his builds of his design.

[Ian Rae]

My Excel has 27 frets and I use all of them without anything bad happening. This is a real physical problem that seems to have no adverse musical consequences

[J D Sauser]

My Excel has 27 frets and I use all of them without anything bad happening. This is a real physical problem that seems to have no adverse musical consequences

the higher up the frets into "Hughey Land" the more things are going wrong anyhow, that 1 millimeter if scale disparity is the least of our troubles:

- 1st, none of us is John Hughey, above the 17th fret we're way out of our territory, Jeff Newman told us so many times!
- 2nd, de-intonation from bar pressure on so many strings which all react so differently to it will top any 1 millimeter's scale disparity's pitch change several times over.

We've all scratched our heads when these steels started to take their place in 30 years ago. Then, Tom Brumley showed up with that Anapeg and nobody wanted to volunteer suggesting that it could sound out of tune.... because Tom apparently could a lot, but playing out of tune was not something he seemed able to.


... J-D.